It’s not like anyone is saying there’s a new rule that every teacher has to call every kid whatever they want, even if they change from one absurd nickname to the rest on a daily basis. Teachers, in general, should be able to decide how far they care to go in accommodating nicknames.
Carving out this one specific exception – saying that teachers can’t be deliberately hateful to one group of kids known to be at high risk – doesn’t mean that the courts are suddenly going to start taking seriously lawsuits from kids demanding to be called “Stinky”, or who attempt to change their pronouns on a daily basis, because unlike actual trans kids, those kids would have no plausible claim for damages.
I believe that it’s controlled by the 1st Amendment and would require a constitutional amendment. You don’t need a member of clergy to approve your faith, just like you don’t need journalistic credentials to have freedom of the press.
And when the school gave clear guidance that kids should be referred to by their preferred name and pronouns, Ms. Ricard refused to, instead calling the student by his unwanted name and as “Miss”. Ricard even refuses to use they/them.
Well, Congress certainly couldn’t pass a law defining who is or isn’t a “member of the clergy”, so it’s pretty much self-definition all the way down.
I assume courts are likely to take claims at least somewhat more seriously if the plaintiff is clearly trying to act in accordance with the established customs of a well-known religion, but theoretically it shoudn’t matter.
Yeah but that’s kinda irrelevant to the OP. The teacher in the OP is not objecting to this because they think it’s impractical or onerous for them as a teacher. They are claiming that a teacher having to call a pupil name X rather than Y, when the pupil wants to be called name X, and the school policy agrees that is what they should be called, is against the teachers rights of religious expression. That is patently ridiculous.
Some form of that rule is what the lawsuit in the OP is about.
Again: it’s easy to come up with obviously absurd standards, but very hard to figure out how to adjudicate the legitimately tricky ones. And of course not everyone agrees with which ones are legitimately tricky. Try to come up with what you consider to be a really tricky case and think about how to solve it. It’s hard!
I’m saying there shouldn’t be any process or any paperwork. Kids should simply notify their teachers if they’d like to be addressed differently – just like they do now. If they want to take a different nickname every day, the teacher can tell them to knock it off. If they want to sue about it, the courts can laugh at them.
You’re trying to find some huge can of worms being opened here, but it’s just not there.
Sure, and I think it’s pretty clear that the teacher in the OP is wrong and is making a silly argument in the lawsuit. The school has a reasonable policy and the teacher refuses to abide by it.
I just think that people who are claiming that the general case of how to determine a policy for what students are called is a legitimately hard problem, and any seemingly simple solution will fall apart when challenged by those great challengers of reason and decorum: teenagers.
I would defer to the teacher/coach’s judgment on those issues. I wouldn’t expect any attempt to file a lawsuit over something like that to be taken at all seriously.
What you seem to be missing is that deliberately and persistently misgendering someone is hate speech. People who object to this teacher’s actions view her as violating the rule “students shouldn’t be subjected to hate speech in the classroom”, not the rule “students always have to be addressed however they prefer”. The latter is a general social courtesy, but not an absolute entitlement.
No, I’m not missing it, and I’ve already said clearly that I think the teacher in the OP is wrong in this case.
Except you don’t defer to the teacher’s judgment in the case in the OP? That’s not really a good answer if you think the case in the OP is bad.
“Defer to the teacher’s judgment” is great until it runs into “teacher is a transphobe”.
It’s also not a great solution in the case where the teacher is mistaken. Take “Princess”, for example. A male-presenting student requests that a teacher call her “Princess”, and the teacher thinks that it’s a joke and refuses. But, like, what if that was a legitimate request? How do you figure that out?
Right. I am saying that specifically demanding that teachers respect the dignity of trans kids ought to be a narrow exception to the general rule that teachers can draw a balance between addressing students as they prefer and maintaining classroom decorum.
Presumably, in one case the rest of the class would speak up and confirm that everyone called that kid “Princess” and used female pronouns for her. In the other case, the rest of the class would titter when the student asked to be called “Princess”. If there was further doubt, the administration and/or parents could be consulted.
On the other hand, if it’s just a cisgender guy who happens to be nicknamed “Princess”, the teacher can call him that or use the name on the rollsheet, as they prefer.
So what do you do if a teacher rejects “Princess” because he thinks it’s a joke but is incorrect (or, presumably, since we can’t actually see inside the inner mind and desires of the person requesting to be called “Princess”, he might be incorrect)?
It sounds to me like you’re saying that no request for a cross-gendered alternate name can be denied? Or maybe just that some can be denied as silly as long as the denial doesn’t extend to all such names?
The point is, you can look at context to see if the kid is actually being consistent in wanting to be called by a certain name everywhere, not just in class. Nobody is saying teachers should be punished for failing to get it right the first couple times. It’s only an issue when the teacher has been repeatedly told that the student is serious and refuses to honor that.
Right. Apologies if I have not been clear before. I have NO SYMPATHY for the teacher, and NO PROBLEM with her acting consistent with clearly stated policy. And I HOPE she loses her suit.
Some of my statements which were likely unclear were aimed at posters who (I thought) were suggesting this ought to just be handled by the teacher in the classroom. If I misunderstood them, I apologize.
My place of employment has had repeated training about calling people what they want to be called. I really couldn’t care less. I’ll do my best to call anyone I encounter whatever they wish. And when I err, I apologize. Complete disclosure, at work I’ve run into more difficulties with hyphenated names than with preferred genders. And when I get any name/identification wrong, it is not because I care one way or another, but instead, because that factor is irrelevant to the job I have to do, and because as important as their matter is to them, it is only 1 of 100s before me at any given time.
Again, I am not a lawyer. But I believe there is a different standard between religious beliefs and religious practices.
You are free to believe anything you want without having to offer any evidence to support your belief. But there is a higher standard when you want to do something based on your religion.
So you are free to believe that God doesn’t want you to pay taxes. But that doesn’t mean you can then put your beliefs into effect and actually stop paying taxes.
I’m just speculating here. But perhaps some young people are adopting they as their personal pronoun due to a feeling that there does not need to be this gender divide in the language. It’s just an ongoing process like that which led to the disuse of words like aviatrix and usherette.